A Personal Definition of Prog
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=98312
Printed Date: May 04 2024 at 16:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A Personal Definition of Prog
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Subject: A Personal Definition of Prog
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 10:43
|
Does anyone else here feel that they have a personal definition of prog that might encompass more than the popular definition? For instance, I feel that it's pretty obvious that Celtic Frost are progressive metal since they used classical instrumentation and even opera vocals on some songs. Granted, their first album was very sloppy and they are not virtuosos. An adventurous approach to making music is what I would consider progressive.
Another band quickly voted down on here was Blue Man Group. Performance art gimmicks aside, they have the most progressive approach to rock I've heard in quite some time. They invent a lot of the instruments they use, incorporate unusual time signatures and even microtones into their work. I'm not looking to get them added here, I just hope to spark a discussion about the fringes of prog possibility and I hope to discover some new music in this thread. I feel that much of what passes for prog now is pretty much what was prog 40 years ago, just tuned down with more distortion. Same with "experimental" music. What was experimental in the era of John Cage is still what gets called experimental. Perhaps it is sort of a nostalgic rut that the music world is stuck in. I'm open to hearing some genuine progress and experimentation. I'm looking forward to your recommendations.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:40
| every band i like is obviously progressive and should be on this website |
Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:44
|
not another one of these god damn threads ------------- http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">  The greatest record label of all time! |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:47
| I agree on all but Megadeth. They sound like plain, generic metal to me. |
Posted By: LakeGlade12
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:49
|
I guess if a artist is pushing boundaries it can be considered progressive, and as long as that genre they are pushing has some connections to rock or metal then it can get the Prog label (as long as the music is reasonably complex or atmospheric). I usually class anything that matches the above criteria or takes inspiration from well known Prog bands as prog themselves. It partly depends on the person's background as well. People who follow mainstream music would consider Muse to be the forefront of modern Prog. Before I knew what Prog was I though Meat Loaf were the embodiment of all things Prog lol. 10 min over the top songs and fantasy artwork, when I first starting lurking here 5 years ago I was very surprised it was not listed! Not even in Prog Related! |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:57
That's how I hear Megadeth too. I've nothing against them, but I have memories of seeing them live in the late 80's and thinking they were awful; probably the worst metal band I ever saw live. Anyway on the subject of prog, there is prog rock and there is progressive music generaly imo. I'll resist listing a load of bands, suffice to say that musicians who try something different and break the standard rules of rock, pop, jazz or classical could be considered progressive. Ultimately I guess it doesn't really matter. There's two types of music: Music that you like and music that you don't like. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
LostWaxMuseum wrote:Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 12:57
| Hi, Smartpatrol. I'm relatively new, so I haven't seen any threads like this. As I stated, I'm not trying to get more artists included on here. I'm looking to find out what other people listen to that is progressive, but doesn't fit the popular definition. If that doesn't interest you, you are under no obligation to participate. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 13:15
Here are the results of about 3 seconds of searching: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=85459&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=85459&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82975&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82975&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=79948&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=79948&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73104&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73104&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72827&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72827&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66495&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66495&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61588&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61588&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61583&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61583&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39305&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39305&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28663&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28663&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28534&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28534&KW=definition http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24942&KW=definition" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24942&KW=definition and I'm sure there are dozens more that don't use the word definition. Maybe some of those threads will have answers you find helpful. |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 13:47
| Thank you, but I'm more interested in how individuals can have a definition that may be more inclusive than the popular notions of what is prog. Your playlist is a good example of what I was looking for. I agree with most of the artists on your list, but a lot of them would be excluded by purists. I'm pretty familiar with the generally accepted meaning of prog, but I'm hoping to find new music that is as groundbreaking now as the first wave of prog was in the late 60s & early 70s. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 13:56
|
That is my forum signature, it's nothing more than my most listened artists. I definitely don't think they all should be here. If you want to make one of those (and have a last.fm account) you can do so on progfreak.com, by the way. Most of the what I consider the most groundbreaking modern music is here already (Kayo Dot, Swans, Jean Louis, Zu, etc). But we are still missing Boris. |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:04
Thank you. :) |
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:13
This ------------- Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half. My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:18
Do you mean a definition that would encompass acts as disparate as Jefferson Airplane, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin? Who would be that crazy?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mirror Image
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:21
|
A progressive rock band is one that can look past barriers and push the envelope stylistically IMHO. ------------- “Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:23
I agree wholeheartedly. |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:30
I think most people would agree with that, but definition problems that arise are 1) is the progressive band "rock" or not? 2) why does "Prog" somehow mean something different than "progressive rock" implies? |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:34
|
No.......umm.....er...........no. No. NO. ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:37
But only if it agrees with my list. ------------- Ian Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/ |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 14:58
|
It died around about 1971 so its pointless worrying about it imo. This site is not about the music its about the people that listen to the music. We congregate and talk because its fun and some even think they know what they are talking about.
|
Posted By: melotron98
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 15:03
 I think a lot of people that are in prog know the definition intuitively... The more prog you know, the better you know what prog is. My definition is that progressive rock is everything that sounds like progressive rock, and for me it is sufficient.
 |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 15:39
|
Hi,
We need a new definition.
 One where "keyboards" is not a mandatory requirement!
 One where "synphonic" does not mean keyboards, specially when Peter Banks used to say he could play those parts along the guitar leads.
 What me keyboard?
 ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 15:39
Like The Flower Kings. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 15:44
|
Waiting for Matt to weigh in here, for only A Person could give A Person-al Definition of Prog. ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 16:32
|
Prog the sticker or the stuff that was progressive? :-P Nah I am not getting pulled into another one of these. No siree. The pit is bottomless, and we always end up at the same status quo: we each have our own understanding of what prog is, and find it increasingly difficult to convey to 'normal' people just exactly what that is. Even among other proggers we can't agree on anything finite. Kinda funny when you think of it:-P ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 16:38
My personal definition, which I think is what the OP is asking, is one very much like a quote I read from Keith Emerson found somewhere on this very site from one of our members. He said something to the effect of taking a song and progressing the music from it. This is really very classical in orientation for it can include inversions, variations, etc. and since this is rock, all-out jamming. This can also include a wide variety of styles. I have also long asserted there is a certain sound that can be defined as Prog, but how to define it precisely has proven very difficult. Some examples of this sound include Yes, Genesis, IQ, Marillion, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, among others. Somewhere buried within all those bands is the sound of Prog. Hmm, perhaps sounding like Genesis is one of the requirements. The music does not have to be ground breaking or innovative. Examples without this sound include Dream Theater, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, among others. The music can be very innovative and ground breaking.  ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 17:06
|
In 71' the sounds used on instruments for Progressive Rock were chosen and repeated for the texture of the music. As years progressed, some guitarists like Robert Fripp or Steve Hackett increased the level of volume for sustain and distortion. But using all out , full lock, "Heavy Metal" distortion or "Stadium Rock" style distortion, (this one goes to 11), was unheard of because it wasn't fitting to the distinctive style of prog then. All that's changed over time and rules were broke. Metal and Prog were once 2 seperate entities. Today they cross into each other with Metal containing complexity and defined as a progressive area...where originally at the time when prog first hit the music scenes it was unheard of and completely uncalled for. Edgar Froese never had that sound on his guitar, Steve Howe didn't, while ironically Ritchie Blackmore, Mick Box, and the guitarist for Lucifer's Friend credited for influencing Metal never quite had that loud roaring distortion either. Alan Holdsworth supposedly influenced Eddie Van Halen, but depended more on sustain and tame sounding distortion that fit more into Prog than straight foward Rock or Metal. All those rules were broken over time and it may not be a totally bad thing, but doesn't have much to offer to me personally because a full amplified distortion of great magnitude doesn't always sound right in a complex composition, unless that distortion on the guitar is loud ...but also tame and selective like the distorted guitar sounds on Univers Zero's Heatwave. |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 19:34
| I make a distinction between "Progressive" as an approach to composing, arranging, instrumenting and orchestrating music (and experimenting with it too), and "Prog" as a genre, which is mostly odd time signatures, long and largely instrumental pieces. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 20:10
|
I insist that Bachman Turner Overdrive be included as prog on this site! Hey, they even had an album called "Not Fragile", referring to Yes' "Fragile". Can't get more prog than that!
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 19 2014 at 20:53
ok walter
that "word" doesn't mean anything but it's a nice thought nonetheless |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 00:46
------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 09:17
| What baffled the H out of me, was how Randy Bachman was held in the highest regard by Keith Emerson. Keith Emerson's level of diverse improvisational performance on piano compares significantly to the level of some of the most superb, intense, outstanding, diverse guitarists on this earth. Maybe his personal tastes in guitar playing doesn't revolve around the technical aspect of it? The lead guitar parts to "Karn Evil 9 are at least somewhat involved. It's not Steve Howe or Andrew Latimer' s level of playing, but it's more progressive in the attack on strings than anything I've ever heard from Randy Bachman. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 09:19
|
^^ Maybe they were drinking buddies. Still, guitar skills or not, he could write a mean song. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 09:37
 Sorry about the undertone attitude rant or what might appear to be one. I praise Nashville guitarists and Ritchie Blackmore influenced me to do that when he was approached as a guitar God in the early 70's by Rock journalists and responded by pointing his finger in the direction of Nashville, (so to speak), in hopes of giving these journalists insight on what a real guitar player is made of.
|
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 09:41
|
Hey, it's cool. I don't really like BTO.. I'm a Guess Who fan.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 09:51
Okay, I give up, who? ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 10:33
| I would have liked to hear your insight, since I wasn't looking to start a debate or gather a concensus. I was hoping to get different perspectives since I think there's things that are obviously prog and then other things that are prog to certain individuals because of how they personally define prog. I know many would disagree with my definition because it includes some shoegaze and industrial, but those are directions rock has progressed in and as long as it meets some other criteria (like complex song structures, time signatures and instrumentation) it is a kind of prog to me. I know my perspective won't change the status quo, nor should it. I want to broaden my horizons by learning what other prog fans like that may fall outside the typical boundaries of prog. |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 20 2014 at 10:34
| I meant to quote Guldbamsen in that last one. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 01:06
I prefer Wendy now
|
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 02:30
|
There's only one definition and it's generally agreed upon. Ironically, people on this site are the only ones confused. It's a style of rock music with structural influence from classical (as opposed to a mere melodic influence e.g. baroque pop). 'Progressive rock' has never been widely used to describe all innovative rock music, because that is an inane, pointless categorization. It's fine that we have a user base here that is interested not only in prog but generally in all creative rock music, but that doesn't mean there's a need to confuse and water down terminology. If you want to talk about Swans, the general music forum is lovely. You're probably better off on RateYourMusic though. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 02:43
Alright cool. Sorry, but some of us here have just been through so many of these, that we tend to get a little jaded and rough around the edges. It's a fair question, and if you just skim through some of the responses from the older discussions, you'll see how differently people view this matter. I gather we're much the same now actually. Just remember the cardinal rule: never confuse progressive music for prog, or is that the other way around? Basically means that prog isn't necessarily progressive, although it used to be. A lot of what is progressive nowadays has next to nothing in common with prog rock. Sure it can be rock and progressive, but that doesn't mean prog. A lot of people make this mistake, especially when you look through the new suggestions forum we have on PA you'll notice this. Anyway if that was the case, and all a band needed to do was play rock and progressive, then we had to have The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Boris, Sunn O))), Pere Ubu, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and The Smashing Pumpkins included as well. All of which played rock at a time in their respective careers, where they were doing something progressive with the genre. That doesn't mean any of them are prog though, or that they should be on PA. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 13:29
There seems to be two rivalling popular definitions of progressive rock I've encountered.
I wager the site admins subscribe to the first, since music groups without much in the way of classical influence have found their way to its database. The second one would exclude most of the "Krautrock" groups except the more overtly symphonic, a lot of jazz fusion, more or less all post-rock, all but a handful Pink Floyd songs scattered across the band's entire discography et cetera. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 13:34
|
Prog is what I get when I mate a Panda with a Frog.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 14:13
Both those definitions can be applied to many bands ie The Nice ELP Genesis King Crimson Yes PFM and there are tons more in fact most of the bands that were called 'progressive rock' before everyone became progressive rock ( or so it now seems) BUT if you are strictly adhering to the compositions being lengthy then that excludes Gentle Giant I presume so I would leave out 'lengthy'. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 21 2014 at 14:44
|
They do have the complexity and classical influence though, which seems to be the important part of the stricter definitions for progressive rock I have seen. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 02:39
I guess many Prog fans are shy with women and green with envy.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 06:48
Could you possibly come up with anything more vague? Which barriers? What style? What would satisfy the criteria for "pushing the envelope"? |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 06:52
|
Sorry Tony, but I just realised that your post count registers as a phone number on my screen ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 07:01
It is my phone number. 
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 07:06
|
:-P ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 07:14
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen?  About OP's post, I personally think that it is most interesting to try build Your personal world view based to concepts fitting Your own mind, the consensus of these with majority being peripheral on certain areas of life, f.ex. how to define some music. If one does not build self-image on values relying too tightly to certain movements, I think it is easier to be open for new people, ideas and be more independent than stuck to mass movements gathering people together. With short life experience, I think people often have different understandings on terms defining unvague concepts like "prog" or "work", making discussions yearn patience and realization the answer won't be found mutually. It could be found personally, but still the search for the answer is more important and giving than the utopia of final discovery. I quess tight definitions are needed to human psyche for building a comphendable perspection to life, but realized it being a trap, and got cured from it. (Where am I BTW? help!  )
|
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 07:40
|
My very simple definition: Progressive rock = art rock (artistic rock) Progression means from plain craft to form of art. So every artistic music could be called progressive music (prog rock, classical music, modern jazz, prog folk, progressive electronica ...) Some further explanation: Art = creative expression with aesthetic value ... Art: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) "That which is static and repetitive is boring. That which is dynamic and random is confusing. In between lies art." John A. Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher. Rock: popular music usually played on electronically amplified instruments and characterized by a persistent heavily accented beat, repetition of simple phrases [riffs], and often country, folk, and blues elements. (Merriam Webster Dictionary) |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 08:16
Nothing wrong with quoting third party definitions but given that the name of this thread is 'A Personal definition of Prog' ain't this tantamount to an admission you have precisely zero opinions of your own? -------------
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 08:25
Are you sure? I just called it and got a guy named "Stavros". He's not your receptionist, is he? |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 08:29
|
Just goes to show how many hours you can use on PA and talk about everything from prog rock to fruit, shaving and hip hop. Tony gets it:-) ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 09:29
| It's very true what you say. This solely depends on the existence of people like us. People who experienced Progressive Rock in the 70's. Rules were firm like laws to follow by the musicians in that time. People often wonder how and why that would be? The most pathetic sounding requests were often rules laid down for musicians...by band leaders. Robert Fripp and Tony Banks for example, ...can you vision either one of these guys allowing commercial writing styles to exist on King Crimson and Genesis albums in the early 70's? If one particular musician in Genesis or K.C. decided to inject a "Hard Rock" riff or sound to the music.....do you do not think that ideas crossing into other styles would have been immediately rejected by these controlling band leaders? Of course they would! People seeeem to take that offensively today. Was it harsh? Did some musicians feel offended by that act? Did Greg Lake feel Tarkus was over the top? The answer is yes. He was more of a rocker than Emerson and Palmer and certain rules laid down by the main composer were harsh, but for good reason. It's not possible for a majority of people to buy into that today because they feel it is unjust to other styles of music. In the days of early Progressive Rock, the focus was on what precisely to dismiss as much as what specifically to include. Some musicians didn't find the subject illuminating and acted as if their allowance had been taken away. Nick Magnus had issues with The Enid and part of that pressure having to do with joining forces with a band that rehearsed 12 to sometimes 15 hrs. a day. |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: May 22 2014 at 21:27
That's some retarded fish baby. ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: freyacat
Date Posted: May 23 2014 at 10:09
|
You know, definitions of progressive rock which try to capture the sense of newness and innovation seem to lose clarity. The genre that was born in the late 60's - early 70's, which joined jazz freedom to classical composition and precision and rock energy, which benefitted from the advent of the synthesizer and interesting new studio techniques, which explored new spiritual and philosophical horizons of lyrical subject matter - That's what we call progressive rock. And you know what? In the big picture, it's still more interesting and innovative than a lot of what we call cutting-edge today. ------------- sad creature nailed upon the coloured door of time |
Posted By: Mirror Image
Date Posted: May 23 2014 at 10:37
Hear, hear! ------------- “Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 23 2014 at 11:16
I have to reluctantly agree with this demarcation. I say reluctantly because the ramifications of option 2 would be completely unpalatable to most of the PA members I've been arguing with to this effect for several years. Even current site admin Guldbamsen has ventured that Krautrock ain't really Prog. -------------
|
Posted By: AEProgman
Date Posted: May 23 2014 at 11:52
|
The frustrating, never ending search for a myriad of sounds,
chord/note progressions, strange, oddly timed, regularly timed, over and under
the top, harmonic, noisy, smooth, deep, light, dark, new, old, and slightly
hook driven musical compositions with multiple or few instruments that at
various stages reaches crescendos that raises the hair on my arms with goose
bumps of sheer delight. The search
continues…..  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 24 2014 at 05:07
I also remember reading an interview with David Gilmour (I think) where he denied Pink Floyd being progressive rock on account of the classical influence in their music being nowhere as integral to their sound as, say, Genesis. I also think some Canterbury scene artists disassociated themselves from the prog-rock movement as their musical background was in jazz rather than classical. On the other hand, looking up contemporary music reporting from Denmark and Sweden the "progressive rock" classification was in the 1960s/1970s treated as more of a cultural movement or "scene" than a specific style... if one that had a certain set of music ideals involving technical proficiency and experimentation with influence from outside rock. Which is basically the first definition. Maybe there's some kind of cultural difference that resulted in something getting lost in translation? ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 24 2014 at 05:08
Very true. I don't particularly think most artists found inside the folk, RIO/Avant, Indo prog/Raga rock, Electronic and post rock subs necessarily qualify as prog either, but we have to look at this from a historical pov. These scenes morphed in and out of each other during prog's heyday, maybe with the exception of post rock, but I think that's why we have all these acts, whom I would never dream of calling prog. It'd be cool to have something like an 'outsider' part of the site, that included these artists for what they were instead of trying to convince people of something that was never true to begin with, but then again that all boils down to whether or not we can persuade Max into making some changes. Btw here I am talking as a fellow member of PA. This is entirely my own take on this. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 24 2014 at 14:12
|
Hi,
Somewhere along the road to Babbalooma and beyond, we will probably have to update the "definition" so it makes better sense musically, and within a musical context and history.
No one sits here and criticizes the definition of "baroque" or the "romantic" periods of arts and music, and it is because the "definition is very clear in tune with the works themselves ... well, not a surprise, but what the heck.
My biggest concern is that we have tied up a "definition" to so many things, and then created sub-divisions because our personal favorite is not included, and that distorts the definition and the concept altogether. IT ALSO TELLS YOU, THAT THE DEFINITION IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH! Because it would withstand a little more criticism.
I find it scary that we call one thing progressive, and then hear a band do theater and try film, and poetry and they are not progressive because it doesn't have the Rick/Tony/Keith keyboards, which is the most senile definition EVER defined. And it was even more fun to read Peter Banks say that he didn't need a keyboard player because he could play the parts on his guitar at the same time!!!!!!! That says NOTHING to you?
I, personally, have loved so much of this music, that I do not want to sit here and say this band is progressive and Guru Guru is not. This band is progressive and La Merde Jolie is not!
In the end, it is all about "expression", and the biggest problem we have is that we're in a time of "top ten" and we do not know how to define music away from the most simplistic music design EVER, and also the laziest. And then we take an effect and call it a musical definition! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: May 24 2014 at 14:28
| ^ I guess we can close the file on that one. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 24 2014 at 15:46
Who is this "we" you are referring to, O ever-expanding and primal conscience of the Intergalactic Oneness? Who exactly are you including in this "we" that is incapable of anything but the laziest and most simplistic definitions? I note with amusement that, as is your proclivity, you did not bother to include your "personal definition of prog" (which was a request of the original poster); instead, you once again try to belittle and denigrate the "we" in your post -- and "we" is, I assume, everyone that is not in your highly eccentric orbit -- while offering nothing concrete about your own definition. So, in future, leave the "we" out of your little tirades and be specific about yourself. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, The We ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 04:10
|
It is what it is.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 05:24
|
my prog has to be bright and sunny. Preferably metal. I had a difficult time identifying Relayer or Fragile or Animals as "prog" because they weren't metal enough. ------------- 
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 06:45
Do you mean a definition that would encompass acts as disparate as Jefferson Airplane, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin? Who would be that crazy? [/QUOTERight. I'm not saying we should include everything as part of the PA database, but there are some surprising things that are included and some things that are not, but have just as much validity. If something is popular enough among prog fans, it'll get included here at least as prog-related because it's based on votes. I was wondering what obscure bands might be slipping through the cracks because maybe they have some, but not all of the traits that would get them in. I'm always digging for music I've never heard before and I hoped start a conversation to broaden my own definition of progressive by learning what others are into that may fall just outside those boundaries.
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 06:53
I agree. I was hoping to discover music I never heard before, but I think I started a different conversation than I expected to. I probably should have asked something like: "what are your top 10 favorite non-prog bands?" That might have been a more direct way to get the information I was looking for, but I was hoping participants might describe, in detail, ensembles they enjoy and what it is about them they feel is progressive.
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 06:57
I don't mind keyboards, but they can be over-the-top sometimes.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 07:32
For the sake of clarity you are advised that although any member can nominate an artist for Prog Related in the Suggest New Bands and Artists thread, they will only be considered for inclusion by the Admins if a formal proposal for inclusion is sent by PM to one of the Admins. This assumes that the nomination has been debated by the membership in the Open, and if necessary, CZ Forums. The Admins Team and the Admin Team alone decide if the artist is suitable for Prog Related and not all eligible bands and artists will be accepted for addition. More info here: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=3942761#3942761" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=3942761#3942761 -------------
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 10:34
So you now are the spokesperson for the "We"?
Congratulations on your promotion. May it serve you well!
Sadly, you are being quite blind when you do not bother to read that I DO have a definition, and that I was specifically opposed to some details in it which are stupid, not musically educated, and strictly based on its sound, not the music itself. IF, and this is IF -- because you won't do it -- you plug half of this music to a score sheet and take the "effects" out", there is nothing in the music that shapes it any different than anything else that has ever been done.
For you the progress of music is based on the "effects" and not the instruments themselves. You might actually be right there, since 100 years from now there won't be orchestras, and all the instruments will be played on an iPod/Pad like thing, and everyone will think it's great music, if not top ten!
I still hold on, perhaps erroneously, to a bit of music history and the learning of an instrument and a combination of folks together. I still look as a "group" as the new composer of the future, not a single entity, as has been the case for hundreds of years.
But for you, there is no music definition, that is personal. I've been about that personal idea from day one, you just don't like it because it is not a socially accepted and kissed concept (at first!) in front of you for you to applaud with everyone else. If you study music history, then you are 100 years behind! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 10:37
Exactly. It stopped being one of the instruments, and became the "symbol" of something else, that is imaginary and not real. And for any of us to say that one instrument is bigger and better than all the others, means we're not listening to the whole piece. We're being selective about one thing only! Thus, I dislike the mention of "keyboards" as an important part of "progressive". The whole thing is, or it is not!
One of the reasons why "opera" kinda died is because folks ended up wanting to hear one voice, and not the whole piece. So people went to see a Callas, or Pavarotti, and when he was gone, they never went to an opera again. That tells you that the music was not important, but he was! It didn't help you appreciate an art form. The same for ballet. Nureyev and others help bring it along, and Misha helped, and after that? Jethro Tull and his album cover took over!
Time for a new art. But in the end, I think that it has to be more than just one part of it. Has to be "bigger" and more "total" in its design, or it will disappear like so many other rock players out there. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 11:44
Since there can be only one of "you" in your altered, often bizarre, plane of existence, we unfortunately are relegated to a lower life-form status in which people listen to music they enjoy without worrying about pushing elitist visions of modal legacies in popular music.
Now you have transitioned from the "we" to the "you": meaning "me" directly; in which case, I would suggest that your reference to what I believe in regards to musical theory is complete cow dung. You haven't the slightest inkling what I believe, because you spend most of the time talking out of your posterior, and from your muffled perch ensconced in your emboweled nether-regions you only expound the flatulent clarion calls of a sham shaman. You don't listen, you expound. You don't reply, you equivocate.This bit of lunacy is particularly rankling:
Please direct me to any quote anywhere in the history of this forum where I ever came vaguely near to what you claim I believe. Go ahead. It doesn't exist. But you don't give a damn about what anyone believes here, so you fabricate delusional dialogues with yourself to suit your own misguided agenda, which I am not entirely sure you even comprehend.
You may be surprised, dear Pedro, that I sometimes agree with your comments (The Doors being progressive, for instance), but those are far and few between. I have no patience with the ones that are typed when you are evidently heavily medicated and are deriving errant messages from a garbled dream-state. As for me, I don't hold to a stagnant definition of "progressive rock" because the target keeps shifting, and has changed since the concept was first defined in the late 60s/early 70s. I heard "progressive rock" in many bands that are not necessarily characterized as progressive on this site. It seemed to me to be a rite of passage for many bands in the late 60s who shifted from blues-based riffs to a more expansive set of compositional tools. Many bands that are considered prog on this site haven't been prog for ages. Oh well. But I do think there are gradations of what should be rightly viewed as "progressive rock", and unlike you I don't confuse what "progressive rock" is to the general notion of progressivity or haute nouveau modernity that you like to interchange with the former and then drop in the name of some degenerate director from the theater of the absurd. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 13:40
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 25 2014 at 16:13
I could swear I saw the word emboweled used on PA for the very first time today
-------------
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 26 2014 at 09:34
It never occurred to me to separate prog from progressive, but I see what you mean. They've evolved apart. I guess since I wasn't making that distinction, I tended to hear a lot of things as being progressive and just expanded my own definition of what I include as prog. Seeing Dead Can Dance, Bjork, Radiohead, and Miranda Sex Garden included here got me thinking enough people on PA are doing the same thing. Wendy Carlos, Dali's Car, Copernicus, some Skinny Puppy are all progressive in my book, but they're probably not in anyone else's definition of prog.
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 26 2014 at 09:42
My mistake. I guess there's more to it than I thought. Thanks for the link. :)
|
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 07:46
| When musicians decide on a musician related impulse to write a fast passage of notes with a odd type of time signature....and...only briefly for about 2 minutes within a singer/songwriter tune they've written , it suddenly becomes Prog in classification because of the 2 minutes of change? Then all this talk of Progressive Rock in pretense and what the original definition meant. It also seems that some people want to apply the formulas of 70's Progressive Rock as only a portion of Prog because it's easier to play and easier to take the easy way out. This may not be true as it just seems like a point to consider. |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 09:51
| Dream Theater are a good example of what a lot of my younger friends think of as the standard of today's progressive rock. Also, Mastodon and Porcupine Tree. There is definitely a lineage and influence from earlier prog, but it's a bit more metal now. I often wonder where the next step in prog evolution will go since the possibilities of prog metal have been thoroughly explored (but not exhausted). |
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:02
Precisely! I mean, I love Radiohead, but when people call them "experimental rock", it makes me wonder: is that the experiment Soft Machine conducted 40 years ago?
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:06
Cheers to that! Tell me some of your favorite obscure bands. I started the thread hoping to discover some music I've never heard before. Can you make some recommendations?
|
Posted By: LostWaxMuseum
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 10:14
I love the idea! Outsider music is another exciting category. I half-expected that to be here already due to Beefheart's inclusion, but aside from him and maybe Jandek, there's not much of a venn diagram between outsider and prog.
|
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 12:21
Observations on this thread, for what they are worth: It is obvious there are many ways to approach Prog, and thus many ways to define exactly what it is. Each has its own merits and weaknesses. We will never arrive at a conclusion to this debate because we are trying to create an objective definition through subject means. This does not necessarily mean all will disagree or that there will be no common ground. I still support the admins approach of describing a variety of characteristics which apply to Prog and think that everyone involved with this thread should review those descriptions. These characteristics do not apply exclusively to Prog, though. Note that these derive from both general opinions and informed analysis.   ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 14:32
The director/theater relation is an example, that many times fits better than in rock music, mostly because good film/theater is still appreciated in other countries, and has a relative position that is quite more enjoyed and discussed, than top ten at PA, relatively speaking.
This is the hard part to discuss here, even with folks like you. The arts are ALL a parallel, and very few, if ANY, do not have similarities to ther folks around them. But it is difficult stating that about pop music, if that is all you know, and then you spring the idea that Mosh is messed up. It's "probably" a fact!!!!! You don't go to the Met, or to the local Orchestra even, and neither do I. It's almost that all the appreciation for anything else is gone, and that slants your relative appreciation and comments.
I don't say that you are wrong, you, AS WELL, have outstanding points, and the only comment I would like to make is that we stick to the subject, that you are accusing me of generalities that I do not even come close to as well, so that means we're both shooting blanks ... but you can ALWAYS ask me ...what do you mean by this in specific? You don't do that to me!
Film, other than Hollywood's hold in America, still has a very significant individual streak that most can not handle, or enjoy. You really should see how many folks walkout of a Gaspar Noe film, or what's his name Dutch guy with all the psychedelic stuff, which even I have walked out of! But I walk out of X-Men after 15 minutes! Or Harry Potter after 20 minutes! It's utter crap, despite people liking it, but because of its "fame" everyone thinks it is not crap.
A definition of "progressive music" and "prog" only needs a bit of cleaning up ... I call it just needs a shoeshine and a bath! It's an old, dirty and too many doves and other birds have spat and pooped on it. I would love to see us clean it up a bit! And again, saying that "keyboards" are necessary or mandatory, is like saying that violins are mandatory in all orchestras, and it might be true for Beethoven and Tchaikovsky times, but I doubt that all the music in the area was ever shown to everyone that didn't have violins, like you can do today. And then Bernard Herrman, did it without a single violin for so many films that we still go ... wow! ... that's cool! Some of these parallels went to music and probably went on to affect what we see and do, that we don't even talk about!
This stuff has a way of really dismantling the definitions. And I, like you, want a solid definition so all of us, and everyone else, runs into a dead end when they try to break it apart! That's all I would love to see, and it can be done, but we have to get off our high horses and the continuing saying nothing part of this ... and stick to details. The keyboard one is the perfect example of how bad a definition can be. I like the joke that came out of Brazil about a guy that turned off this massive set of keyboards, and someone asked him why? Because I wanted to play jazz, not other music. I have to admit I still love that cartoon and wish I could find it and post it here! It came out in the Sao Paolo newspaper 30 years ago, and I can not tell yo who it was digging at! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 16:24
|
^While I agree with a lot of what you have to say Pedro - especially regarding the relationship between the arts and how they influenced each other, or, at the very least, inspired each other, you do have a tendency to interchange progressive music and 'prog'. These are, however, not interchangeable. A lot of the prog stuff that's being dished out nowadays, and frankly since the tail end of the 70s, is/was not progressive. It doesn't "push the envelope" of how we, as music fans, look at music and the rock genre as a whole. Yet we still feature artists here that aren't progressive. Why? Because they play 'prog'. Now whether one could accuse the process of turning a word like 'prog', meaning progressive rock, into a sticker, or a sub genre of rock, of falsifying the truth and indeed taking away from the actual meaning of the word....well that's an entirely different matter altogether. This very site exists because of the sticker. Because a lot of collabs have dedicated their time and efforts into making this site one of the leading inside prog - yes the sticker. There is a lot of progressive music added to the data base too, but it's certainly not mandatory - and we are not specifically looking for that, unless it has something to do with our much beloved genre. May be a shame to a lot of folks, but then again we're not called The Progressive Music Archives. If we did, then yes we could start brewing together a definition of progressive music that perhaps catered a bit better to what you're asking for.......but then again, with such a definition, we'd be opening the doors to hip hop, jazz, techno, chanson, musique concrete, punk, funk and the list is literally endless. I love music from all sides of the spectrum - and I happen to love music that takes things to the next level - rams a chili up my backside and leaves an expression on my face that says nothing but: "Hot damn!!!! Did they just do that!?!?!?" BUT, and I say this as a fellow music lover and lowbrow patron of the arts, Prog Archives is not - nor have ever been about the relationship between the arts or the lineage of progressive music. If it was it'd be an entirely different site, where most of the music, which we, the every day users, call 'prog', would have zero chance of getting included. Most of the stuff we'd be adding would be dub step, future garage (yes that's actually a form of music!) and the kind of klezmer folk music that's getting played in every major European city, where people go absolutely mad and dance and drink the night away. If we ever cook up a definitive definition of anything that has to do with music, then we have lost the plot imho. Why? Because it's music.
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 27 2014 at 21:24
I will say "some" music can be paralleled with a visual medium like film (and The Doors, Floyd and even early Alice Cooper are good examples where the visuals invoked are as important as the music itself), just as "some" music can be compared to sculpture, painting or tone poems or whatever cross-fertilization you care to employ. But the emphasis here is Progressive Rock, and the prime motivation is listening.
See, this is the part where I feel like going off on you because you don't know my experiences and you tend to minimize what other people say here. You do that nearly every goddamn time. I have been to the Met and Carnegie Hall (although I despise NY and haven't been there for years). But I have been a season ticket holder for the Detroit Symphony (internationally acclaimed with some truly fine recordings, by the way). SO DON'T TELL ME WHAT THE HELL I DO OR DON'T DO! This is a progressive rock site. It is, unsurprisingly, about progressive rock. I could type or talk just as passionately about Elmore James or Mississippi John Hurt if this were a blues site. Or we could talk about Django Reinhardt's burnt left hand, but that's not germane to this forum. There is progressive rock, and that is only loosely tied to other progressive music for the most part. There are infusions from elsewhere, certainly, but I like my rock, just as I like blues or classical, and seldom do I listen to them together. Call it musical compartmentalization.
From reading your posts, I would say that specificity is not your forte. I asked you to be specific in other threads, but your answer was always "what's the point?" as if whatever divine revelation you would utter would be over my head. Which, of course, only irks me further. But I must say, your current post actually exhibits humanistic behavior, not some strange cross-hybridization of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Timothy Leary. Keep it going.
Yes, the vast majority of Hollywood movies suck. Did you somehow think I prefer crappy movies, or that I am unable to ascertain a good film from a bad one? That's about as off-base as thinking I prefer top ten hits or American Idol. I assure you, I don't.
But Bernard Herrmann's most striking film score employed shrieking violins, and as far as bird poop, Herrmann did sound design for Hitchcock's The Birds, which has no music at all, only electronically generated chirping and cawing. But does the definition of progressive rock need sprucing up? Perhaps in its present incarnation (whatever that is), but the current definition works just fine for the mythical age of prog between 1969 and 1976 (or 78 or whatever), when no one I knew even used the term "progressive rock". Back then, it was good rock or bad rock, great music or music that sucked. It just so happened that many of the bands we now consider to be "prog rock" also happened to be bands that didn't suck. If you know what I mean.
Again, many of the greatest bands in the High Ages of Prog had a keyboard: Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, Tull, ELP, Genesis (and earlier, The Moody Blues, Procol Harum, The Nice, Soft Machine, etc.) -- even bands on the periphery of prog like Deep Purple, and yes, Led Zeppelin employed keys. It was sort of like the obligatory drum solo that is now unheard of. And cow bells. *Cues Leslie West and Mountain* Does it apply now? I doubt it (unless you're Big Big Train trying awfully hard to make the reincarnation of Trick of the Tail). But as I said in my previous post, I think there are gradations of prog, and I suppose there should be an epochal designation of what prog was, is and will be. Except any music that employs death growls. Sorry, nothing progressive about that.
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:09
|
The music was defined by the musicians and the musicians that they influenced that came later. The reason keyboards are so closely associated with prog is because it was an easy way to play expansive music in a live arena. You also had new unique sounds that a guitar could not produce. Remember Keith Emerson taking the back off the organ to get different sounds? That is the epitomy of progressive thinking in rock music. 'Progressive rock' as we know it only existed when it was happening which was about 1969 to maybe 1972. I guess I can expect another lame response to that. After that it became 'prog'. Ian Anderson has talked about this so believe him if you don't want to believe me.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:34
Just a little off-topic comment. As much as I fancy myself as Spiderman, I don't really like spiders. No offense. Back on topic, I follow Mirror Image's definition. It's not the personal definition I had before I came to the site, but I was happy to adapt. I used to make a distinction between Prog (=Symph Prog) and US West Coast Art Rock (=RIO/Avant, e.g Zappa, Beefheart, Henry Kaiser). I now happily include RIO/Avant altogether in Prog. This hasn't lead me to include any more mainstream bands that are not included as such in the site, although I haven't tried to confirm that. I would not include jazz-rock in my personal definition except in as far as it was one of the early pioneers. I would not, for instance, include Spyro Gyra as a Prog band. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 01:45
| It's not just about who is a Prog band or musician and who is not. Some artists have Prog albums and non-Prog albums. I don't consider Steve Hackett's - Blues With a Feeling or his classical albums like Momentum to be Prog albums, but I enjoy them all the same. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 07:53
Although I'm in broad general agreement with your post Dark Elf, ain't this dialogue with Moshkito getting just a tad too personal for its own good hereabouts? -------------
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 11:12
I think the idea that Progressive Rock was keyboard dominated is way overblown. Keith Emerson doing quite cruel things to his organ was easily matched by guitarists like Steve Hackett and Robert Fripp and others. The rise of interesting timbres came really with the increasing use of stompboxes. Guitarists were using them with their guitars. Keyboardists were using them with their organs. Synthesizers of course trickled in late in most cases past your 1972 date. There were bands with keyboardists and no guitarist, but there were bands with guitarists and no keyboardist (e.g. Jade Warrior). Much as I love Ian, I don't think a lot of his comments on Prog(ressive Rock) Tull's relationship to it are terribly cogent. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: May 28 2014 at 21:29
Why, yes, I believe you are right. Which is why I showed my kinder, gentler side in my follow-up post.... Wait, I don't have a kinder, gentler side. Never mind. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 29 2014 at 01:03
I wasn't going in the direction that progressive rock was just about keyboards but clearly the most successful bands of the time both creatively and commercially were keyboard dominated. It was only Rush much later that proved you could avoid keyboards to a large extent although even saying that 2112 would not be as good without Geddy's synths and this also very true of Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves. Fripp used the Mellotron extensively of course. Starless without keyboard? I think not! I would go as far as to say that prog rock would not have anything like the same impact without the keyboard. That was the key instrument
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 29 2014 at 08:35
I have to agree with Hackett fan here as notwithstanding the unresolvable debate about 'most creatively successful' etc we can at least concentrate on the Prog big boys: Floyd, Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson all used keyboards extensively but none of them in my view could be viewed as keyboard dominated bands. (Gilmour, Hackett, Howe and Fripp were demonstrably contrary in that regard) The only remaining member of the biggies were ELP who were, by dint of comparison, almost an exclusively keyboard dominated band. It should also be borne in mind that three of these bands are unequivocally Symphonic Prog in orientation and no, texture does not dictate content but yeah, perhaps keyboards do hold sway in that sub genre but for the greater Prog realm that ain't necessarily so. -------------
|
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: June 01 2014 at 15:44
You don't read precisely. You missed the personal definition part (prog rock = artistic rock). |
Posted By: -Radioswim-
Date Posted: June 02 2014 at 01:54
|
I could die happy, if not another thread was started about the 'definition of prog'. It's just a tired discussion. Just read the other dozens of threads that have already been beat'n to death, or even better bring them back from the dead! (please don't!) Kill this thread, for the love of all things Zappa. -------------  Dust in the Kitchen |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: June 02 2014 at 04:20
| Imo, it's all just a matter of acceptance; progressive rock is what we hear and then we accept it as such. Therefore, there are no rules or pedantic, scholastical definition that could explain all styles of progressive rock. |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: June 02 2014 at 05:36
You might as well close all threads in the forum, because as far as i know prog archives is about progressive rock and that a forum is suppose to be open for all discussion. Maybe you are personally tired of this specific subject, but there maybe someone that want to express his thought on that subject. ------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: June 02 2014 at 06:17
Well OK but it hardly amounts to much of a demarcation criteria e.g. the Cure, Joy Division, Cocteau Twins and say, Magazine are generally considered to be artistic rock (habitually lassoed in the Post Punk corral) but clearly none are prog rock. Similarly, it could be argued that Cockney Rebel, Mott the Hoople and the Tubes might also qualify as artistic rock (from the Glam stable) but none are prog rock. This strikes me as a dogeared case of failing to make the distinction between Prog the noun versus progressive the adjective. I read fine thanks all the same -------------
|